Hudson v. Palmer

In Hudson v. Palmer, the Supreme Court sought to define the limits of the constitutional rights of prisoners. Toward that end, its decision tacitly served to instruct states and penal authorities in the constitutionally acceptable administration of justice in detention facilities. The Court ruled prisoners must be aware that incarceration reduces and limits applicability of personal rights. Although a certain level of constitutional rights cannot be denied to the inmates, the risk of contraband and violence in prisons enabled prison officers to search and seize randomly in order to maintain order and prevent accidents. Moreover, the Court supported the notion that planned programs of inspection would only serve to weaken prison security measures. Finally, the justices reasoned that if state law provided post-deprivation remedies as compensation for harmful conduct by state officials, there could be no question as to the violation of constitutional rights of incarcerated prisoners. Dissenting opinions showed that the Court relied on the argument that all actions of prison officers could not be taken as "reasonable" and "indispensable," especially because Palmer's seized and destroyed property was not prohibited or contraband. It means that while the rights of convicts are minimal, guards are not entitled to act just to harass them. Diminishing the value of the Fourth Amendment rights inside reformatory centers may also "undermine the rehabilitation function of the institution."